Thursday, January 9, 2014

Unfair to judge China as aggressor over air defence zone

TODAY Forum

FROM ONG HEAN TEIK

04 JANUARY 2014

Some have called China’s announcement of an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) an aggressive act.

However, as pointed out in the report, “Foreign warplanes remain active in China’s defence zone” (Dec 30), since China established its ADIZ, 800 foreign military planes have flown over the territory unhindered, while China has conducted 51 missions.

In contrast, Japan sent its warplanes 193 times between July and September in response to foreign military flights. It is obvious which the aggressive country is.

If establishing an ADIZ is aggressive, then those that established these zones first must be the persisting aggressors. The United States’ ADIZ began in 1950, Japan’s in 1969. Why has the world kept quiet about these actions?

The US sends its military planes and ships thousands of kilometres away from its borders. It is no wonder they were monitored or faced Chinese ships as they approached Chinese airspace and seas.

In facing two aggressive countries, China can seek only to defend its rights. It is time for fairness in this world, and not have one rule for the powerful and another for the others.

[I will let the online comments respond to this letter. However, note that the comment thread I picked is not representative of the comments on line. Quite a number were "Apologists for China". Others were out of point (big surprise. This is the internet). This one attempted to refute the allegations in the letter, and then there was a respond. I thought it funny that the main thrust of his counter was: "you're just parroting the Japanese Govt paid message!", when he was just parroting the Chinese Govt PR statements and "spin".I find these "Nanyang Chauvinists" quite silly and deluded. I think it was LKY who said that when he visited China, he found some ex-Singaporeans who had gone to China during WWII to help defend China. Except that they were treated with suspicion, doubt, and as outcasts. These "Nanyang Chauvinists" sees themselves as True Sons of China, but don't realise that to the PRC, they have enough "True Sons", and their motives are suspect to the PRC. ]

--- One Comment thread from online ---

Commenter DThis letter is a biased, one-sided, partial perspective of the issue.And the basis for judging aggression is irrelevant if not outright stupid. The number of foreign flights in the area is a measure of aggression?That is simplistic and ignores the practical and political reality of the situation.And yes, countries can establish ADIZ and it would not be an act of aggression. However. China's ADIZ is NOT an ADIZ. It is BEYOND the scope of an ADIZ, and and functions more "militarily" (and hence aggressively) than a ADIZ.Moreover, China's unilaterally declared "ADIZ" overlaps other countries' already established (and much more reasonable) ADIZ, and the onus would have been on China, in proposing a new ADIZ, to consult and negotiate with these other countries to sort out the overlap. Specifically, China's "ADIZ" overlaps with Japan's, S. Korea's, and Taiwan's ADIZ. Sure, they don't recognise Taiwan, so that may well justify their slight of Taiwan. But S. Korea and Japan?But why is China's "ADIZ" MORE than an ADIZ?This article explains: http://heresthenews.blogspot.sg/2013/12/chinas-adiz-brazen-air-grab-land-grab.htmlBut to summarise just one of the points from the article, the international norm of "innocent passage" means that aircraft passing through an ADIZ but not intending to enter the territorial airspace of the country (whose ADIZ they are passing through) is not required to report to the country. This is clearly NOT the case for China's "ADIZ". Hence commercial jets flying between Singapore and Tokyo for example are required by China to file their flight plans and report their position periodically to China. Despite NOT entering China's territorial airspace. In effect, China's ADIZ is a territorial claim of the airspace within their so-called "ADIZ".So to claim that China is just implementing it's own ADIZ ignores the blatant attempt at seizing control and "sovereignty" (?) of their "ADIZ" as China's territorial airspace. To be clear, in line with the "innocent passage" norm, the US does not require aircraft passing through their ADIZ but not intending to enter US airspace, to comply with ADIZ procedure (i.e. report to US).So no. The world is not making a noise about China's implementation of the ADIZ. The world is making a noise because China's so-called ADIZ is a thinly (and poorly) disguised attempt at extending their territorial airspace (possibly as a prelude to reinforcing their claim of the disputed isles), and it ignores international norms (such as the right of innocent passage), and unilaterally imposes requirements contrary to such norms, and threatens military action for non-compliance.China is the bully here. Singapore and Taiwan are unable or unwilling to stand up to the bully. It falls to Bigger Boys like Japan and the US to call the bully's bluff. And we can only hope that it is a bluff, and that it will be resolved without any tragedy.January 4 at 7:08am

---Commenter SA lot of words and rehashes of APP reportings without kowing those were US views and to some extent a paid campaign by Japan Foriegn Ministty.What norm is ADIZ? Who started them? Have you compare the ADIZ surrounding China? And who's norm? Now take a look around ADIZ around US, and around Japan. US spy ship went so close to monitor the China carrier, and when a smaller China ship tried to "say" guys don't try poke people in the eyes and back off, they came atound and complain.January 5 at 4:36pm
---

Commenter DAnd the basis of your claims? Your position? So Japan, Taiwan and S Korea's ADIZ were NOT overlapped by this so-called ADIZ?So it is NOT aggressive to just unilaterally declare control over a space regardless of existing arrangements without preliminary discussion, early consultation, and negotiation? It is NOT aggressive to overlap other existing ADIZ?It is NOT aggressive to threaten military action against passenger aircraft not entering your airspace but just passing through as "innocent passage"?So it is purely a COINCIDENCE that China's ADIZ so happens to include the disputed isles?If US and Japan were the only country voicing concerns about China's ADIZ then maybe your comments may have some basis. But the simple fact is that China's action is alarming to many countries, who have expressed their concern about China's intent and words, like "power grab" and "aggressive" and "provocative" has been used to describe China's actions and to denounce China's actions. The effect of all these criticism is to draw out the Chinese Chauvinists and the Chinese Apologists like this letter and some of the comments, and you.So are you one of China's apologists or a Chinese Chauvinist? January 6 at 4:53am---

Commenter Shave you read more than what have been fed to you by the pro US press? Do you know the Japanese government have a huge fund to pay off writers. From your writings, I am re-hearing the views of the Western press. Have you read the China media on their position? Have you compare all the ADIZs I have mentioned? I don't think so. I don't think you wanted to be biased, but you have been made into one by the materials planted into you.When you are weak, other people can draw a huge zone just at the edge of your house without seeking your permission, and claim that is their defensive zone. So when you are strong, do you seek people for permission to write your zone outside your own home. What answers you going to get? NO, so you keep accepting the bullying. There are too many chess playing.I took your last 2 paragraphs as incomplete draft. So I shall not take offence. ADIZ is clearly a move not at the innocent civilian flights, if the flight plans are filed they are Ok. If they are not filed, they are Ok too. It is not to let US and Japan getting away frm the post WW2 international treaty of wanting the Japanese to return the lands prior the WW2 agression. I don't think I have time to come back to rebute your points if there is any. Just beware of too much posionings in the Western press by too many people with dubious intent.January 6 at 3:49pm---

Commenter SJust to comment on the "words" used by the US and their press. There is no international treaty on the ADIZ. So US want their old "norm" to be the accepted position. And frame whatever that wants to change it as aggressor. And the old norm is when China were very weak and US were very strong, you could draw wherever zone you wanted without CARING for permission. And when people become strong, and start writing their zone to stand up for themselves, they wanted their old "norm" to be accepted, and be consulted, otherwise you are an aggressor in your own backyard. The facts is the "norm" has changed, if there is one. China move is either I can stand up for myself whatever I see fit. US move is accepted the norm I had marked for myself. Will US put out all the ADIZs on the table that all the international community can accept? If they can't, then everyone can and should challenge whatever people have put up around them when they can. I don't think it is an unreasonable position as a country, as a family and as an individual.January 6 at 6:06pm---

Commenter DSo instead of listening to the Japanese Press that is paid off by the Japanese Govt, you have chosen to listen to the Chinese press that is CONTROLLED by the Chinese Govt? That's unassailable logic. Quote from your writing: "when you are strong, do you seek people for permission...?"Thank you for confirming that China believes that Might is Right. Thank you for affirming that China is acting like a Bully. Thank you for proving that you are a Chinese Apologist. "ADIZ is clearly a move not at the innocent civilian flights, if the flight plans are filed they are Ok. If they are not filed, they are Ok too."Really? So you haven't read the East China Sea Air Defence Identification Zone (to use the name the Chinese has given it)? I suggest you read it before you spout more communist press propaganda/ damage control/ spin doctoring. The first rule is "Aircraft MUST follow... the rules." No qualification about civil or military.The third is: "China's armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions." Again no qualification about civil or military aircraft. So who do I believe? The official announcement of MinDef PRC? Or a Chinese Apologist like you?Oh, you will say, China already clarified that the rules do not apply to civilian flights. If so, scrap the rule then. What kind of rule is it if, as you say, "it's ok if you follow, and it's also ok if you don't follow"? If the rule doesn't apply to civilian then rescind that rule for civilian aircraft. Don't say one thing, and then say another, and then do something else. That shows lack of integrity, lack of honesty, and lack of righteousness. But it is China. Expect less.